I believe in the aquatic ape hypothesis and people persecute me for it.

[CEngelbrecht]

I took a look back at some of the threads this poster started years ago on this forum. What is striking is that exactly the same images are used as in this thread, accompanied by a very similar stream of vituperative swearing. Nothing has progressed. No new arguments - well no arguments at all - are put forward.

You keep babbling the same nonsense. The counters remain the same.

It's just a re-run of old battles, apparently, right down to the same use of the Galileo Gambit. One wonders what the point is.

Knowledge. For knowledge's own sake, nothing more.

Perhaps you are right that he has just been chucked out of another forum and this is the only one available that won't peremptorily ban him. Though I do think he might like to try the nutcase scienceforums.com site (the more serious .net one will throw him out within 10 posts).

Use the correct word. "Heretic".

I found that I had this to say to him, back in 2018:
As I've said many times before, the impartial scientist is under no obligation to listen to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner.

Now you are just such a nutter. You have been banging on about this, obsessively, for literally years, on several science forums. In that time the arguments have ben amply aired - and as far as I am concerned, convincingly dismissed.

If you now have a reputation as a partially deranged monomaniac, it is entirely your own fault. Slightly cruelly I quite enjoy putting 50p in your slot from time to time and observing the lights starting to flash and the pinging noises. But nobody is listening any more.

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. [History] shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan

I had forgotten he's been at it on several forums, down the years. It all seems a bit medical, to be honest.

Yeah, Giordano Bruno sure was crazy too, weren't he? Too bad you can't burn me alive too. Or maybe Fuehrer Trump will reinstate that for you as well. When the creationists marches back in to drag us back into the dark age. With you opening the gates for them, when you too ignore your own scientific method, whenever you refuse true challenges to your own dogma. The scientific method was the only weapon you had against all them religious nutjobs clammering to burn Darwin's books. But you will crush bringers of inconvenient truths too and just flush your own method down the bog. You let might make right, and creationists are out in force. That you suffer hysterical dogma onto yourself too means they will win.

It was never crazy. And it's likely true. And that's exactly what you can't forgive it for. The Earth must remain the center of the universe. You don't care what human origin actually was either.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yes, "hydrofeminism" does look like a parody, I agree.

I've never come across the idea of physics being "masculinist" for "privileging" solids over liquids, though. Have you made that one up, or can you provide a reference or two? It sounds rather amusing. (I love the use of "privileging", turning privilege into a verb, by the way - seems authentically right-on. You've clearly got the lingo.)

You will rape the womenfolk too when the war reaches your lands.

Bully chimps get more kids: study

 

[exchemist]

You will rape the womenfolk too when the war reaches your lands.

Bully chimps get more kids: study

 

[DaveC426913]

Good. If you're so afraid of having your world view challenged that you won't even read a few abstracts, then your opinion on this topic is irrelevant.

It is no less relevant than yours, as it appears you have done little to educate yourself on paleoanthropology beyond reading one book.


This is a discussion forum, not a book club. You have an obligation to bring your specific arguments forth. We do not have an obligation to do your homework for you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Use the correct word. "Heretic".


Too bad you can't burn me alive too.

Oh boo hoo.

CE gets kicked off some other site, shows up here with an armful of wood he brought himself, stacks it in a pile, sets it alight and then jumps on it, crying "Why oh why do they persecute me?"

 

[billvon]

Yeah, Giordano Bruno sure was crazy too, weren't he? Too bad you can't burn me alive too.

"They laughed at Einstein, too, you know!"

 

[CEngelbrecht]

"They laughed at Einstein, too, you know!"

Yes, that's right. And you would've been one of them.

 

[billvon]

Yes, that's right. And you would've been one of them.

Yep. You're just like Einstein.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yep. You're just like Einstein.

That wasn't what I said, now was it, darling?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Eleven pages and I'm still not sure why this matters.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Eleven pages and I'm still not sure why this matters.

That's because you don't want to. You're just a Christmas tiger, aren't ya?

 

[exchemist]

We did this 6 years ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/s...’s-early-evolution.160872/page-2#post-3520967

 

[CEngelbrecht]

We did this 6 years ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/surfer’s-ear-provide-fossil-evidence-of-an-aquatic-phase-in-man’s-early-evolution.160872/page-2#post-3520967

And the counters are the same. You're now thirty years behind on the relevant literature.

 

[DaveC426913]

And the counters are the same. You're now thirty years behind on the relevant literature.

The same can be said about you, it would seem.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

That's speculative. Where are the extant signs of large communities at the beach? Tools, bones, etc.

CP:

the majority of fossils are marine.

---

There is no evidence in that quote.

That right there? That is you being the creationist.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

The same can be said about you, it would seem.

 

[billvon]

We did this 6 years ago:

He needs another little ego boost.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

That literally makes no sense. You quoted someone saying the savannah hypothesis is dead. But there's no content in that quote about why that might be so. That's all I pointed out. What on Earth does does a valid, true observation about your quote have to do with Creationism?

Please put more thought into your responses.

Who said it?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

He needs another little ego boost.

Who's the ego here? Who refuse to be proven wrong, no matter what the evidence?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

If you want to present someone's evidence that a hypothesis is dead, then you present that evidence. If all you offer is a name, that's argument by authority.

Right, only you are allowed to do that, I keep forgetting my place.